Jeroen Gerard. Scheepens et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 30, 201915022593 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/022,593 03/17/2016 JEROEN GERARD SCHEEPENS 2013P01282WOUS 2168 24737 7590 10/30/2019 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus Avenue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): katelyn.mulroy@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JEROEN GERARD SCHEEPENS, IVO DON STUYFZAND, HENDRIKUS BERNARDUS VAN DEN BRINK, JURGEN JEAN LOUIS HOPPENBROUWERS, and PETRUS JOHANNES GERARDUS MENTJOX ____________________ Appeal 2018-005671 Application 15/022,5931 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.3 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Claims 9, 14, and 21 have been cancelled. (App. Br. 14–17 (Claims App.).) 3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 17, 2016, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 30, 2017, the Appeal Appeal 2018-005671 Application 15/022,593 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a system and a method “for simultaneously displaying video data of multiple video sources on a display.” (Spec. 1:2–3; Abstract.) Appellant’s invention spatially scales the video data of one or more of multiple video sources to fit respective display viewports, and generates a visual indicator for visually indicating whether the video data in one of the viewports has been spatially scaled from its native spatial resolution, thereby “warn[ing] the user that the video data in one of the viewports may comprise undesirable artifacts which may hinder interpretation of the video data.” (Abstract.) Claims 1, 13, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for simultaneously displaying video data of multiple video sources on a display, the system comprising: a video input circuit for receiving the video data of the multiple video sources, wherein the video data of at least one of the multiple video sources is explicitly marked as being scaling- sensitive; a display processor for generating display data to display the video data of the multiple video sources in respective viewports on a display, the viewports being sized and positioned to simultaneously fit a display area on the display; wherein the display processor is arranged for: if needed to fit the size of respective ones of the viewports, automatically spatially scaling the video data of one or more of the multiple video sources to fit said respective viewports, and Brief (“App. Br.”) filed February 16, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 16, 2018, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 10, 2018. Appeal 2018-005671 Application 15/022,593 3 only for each video data that is explicitly marked as being scaling-sensitive and has been spatially scaled4, generating a visual indicator for visually indicating that the scaling-sensitive video data has been spatially scaled from its native spatial resolution; and concurrently displaying the visual indicator while displaying the scaling-sensitive video data that has been spatially scaled. (App. Br. 13–17 (Claims App.).) REJECTION & REFERENCES Claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Haj-khalil et al. (US 4 In our analysis, we assume the “spatially scaled” video data mentioned here is the result of “automatically spatially scaling” in the preceding “if” conditional limitation. The conditional limitation is thus necessarily carried out by claim 1’s display processor and in the performance of the claimed method in claim 13, and may be given patentable weight. See In re Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB) (April 28, 2016) (precedential). For example, method claim 13 recites that “only for each video data that is explicitly marked as being scaling-sensitive and has been spatially scaled, generating a visual indicator for visually indicating that the scaling-sensitive video data has been spatially scaled,” which necessitates the performance of the preceding “if” limitation (i.e., performance of “automatically spatially scaling the video data of one or more of the multiple video sources to fit said respective viewports”). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of independent claim 13 (and system claim 1) requires both “automatically spatially scaling the video data of one or more of the multiple video sources to fit said respective viewports” and “only for each video data that is explicitly marked as being scaling-sensitive and has been spatially scaled, generating [the] visual indicator.” The Examiner should therefore consider whether the conditionality of the preceding “if” limitation should be eliminated and the word “automatically” added before “spatially scaled” here in claim 1 (and similarly in claim 13), to make the claim language clearer. Appeal 2018-005671 Application 15/022,593 4 2009/0228922 A1, published Sept. 10, 2009) (“Haj-khalil”) further in view of Examiner’s Evidenced Prior Art.5 (Final Act. 8–22.) ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds the claimed “scaling-sensitive could include any image content which is resized to a different format/resolution/size then[sic] it was created,” and the AAPA, Haj-khalil, and the Examiner’s Evidenced Prior Art teach video data including additional imaging information such as “metadata, resolution, aspect-ratio, frequency etc.[] in the signal which is then used by the receiving device/display in order to convert (or not) or scale (or not) when needed/desired,” thereby teaching and suggesting the claimed “video data 5 As the “Examiner’s Evidenced Prior Art,” the Examiner cites: Imai et al. (US 2013/0207942 A1, published Aug. 15, 2013) (“Imai”); Itani (US 2007/0248324 A1, published Oct. 25, 2007); Cherna et al. (US 2007/0201833 A1, published Aug. 30, 2007) (“Cherna”); Sie et al. (US 2004/0212731 A1, published Oct. 28, 2004) (“Sie”); Masukura et al. (US 2004/0148640 A1, published July 29, 2004) (“Masukura”); Sugiyama et al. (US 2003/0009722 A1, published Jan. 9, 2003) (“Sugiyama”); Unemura (US 6,798,458 B1, issued Sept. 28, 2004); An et al. (US 7,224,404 B2, issued May 29, 2007) (“An”); Yoo et al. (US 6,738,559 B1, issued May 18, 2004) (“Yoo”); Kim et al. (US 6,714,253 B2, issued Mar. 30, 2004) (“Kim ’253”); Suh (US 5,815,216, issued Sept. 29, 1998) (“Suh ’216”); Lownes et al. (US 6,137,539, issued Oct. 24, 2000) (“Lownes”); Suh et al. (US 8,229,272 B2, issued July 24, 2012) (“Suh ’272”); Gotanda et al. (US 7,596,188 B2, issued Sept. 29, 2009) (“Gotanda”); Kim (US 2008/0309821 A1, published Dec. 18, 2008) (“Kim ’821”); Cohen-Solal (US 7,206,029 B2, issued Apr. 17, 2007); Rigolet (US 2007/0250788 A1, published Oct. 25, 2007); Hernandez et al. (US 8,982,145 B2, issued Mar. 17, 2015) (“Hernandez”); DeHaan et al. (US 2012/0075526 A1, published March 29, 2012) (“DeHaan”); and Altmanshofer et al. (US 5,442,406, issued Aug. 15, 1995) (“Altmanshofer”). (See Final Act. 3–4, 9–11, 13; Ans. 23, 26–34.) Appeal 2018-005671 Application 15/022,593 5 . . . is explicitly marked as being scaling-sensitive.” (Ans. 20–21, 23, 32– 34); Final Act. 9, 15–16.) The Examiner further finds the cited art teaches and suggests the claimed “only for each video data that is explicitly marked as being scaling-sensitive and has been spatially scaled, generating a visual indicator for visually indicating that the scaling-sensitive video data has been spatially scaled from its native spatial resolution,” because “it is known to display a visual indicator when image data has been scaled” and it is known to display such information [(warning, notifications)] whether it’s the only video source display or displayed with other sources as evidenced by the prior art. . . . if a scaling operation was performed and the marking was not included (exclusive to the already provided data regarding resolution, aspect-ratio), a sensitive scaled displayed image would not include a visual indicator (even though it has been spatially scaled from its native resolution). This would render the prior art invalid, since the prior art already displays a visual indicator when resized/rescaled (indicative of scaling-sensitive). In essence, the applicant’s invention appears to be marking a video to display something it already displays (as shown by the prior art where a received video has a resolution, aspect-ratio which is adjusted/changed/converted or not by the display, and when adjusted/changed/converted displaying such information). In short, marking an already marked video signal to display information which it would when converted, scaled, and/or resized. Another example would be equatable to including information in signal that said if this image is displayed on the right side of the screen, and there is a left image, display the letter R, or if displayed on the left screen the letter L (along with a right image). . . . [T]he appellant is marking an already marked video data, where the claim only recites marking. In the event the appellant included marking an already marked video signal, the examiner Appeal 2018-005671 Application 15/022,593 6 notes cited US 6,714,253 (Fig 10) which includes a custom bit for signal processing, which is including/marking additional information to the included information (resolution . . . bit 4). (Final Act. 15; Ans. 22, 32; see also Final Act. 9–12.) We do not agree. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that Haj- khalil and the Examiner’s Evidenced Prior Art, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests that “only for each video data that is explicitly marked as being scaling-sensitive and has been spatially scaled, does the display processor generate a visual indicator for visually indicating that the scaling-sensitive video data has been spatially scaled from its native spatial resolution” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 10, 13 (see claim 1).) In other words, Appellant’s claim 1 requires that “the warning [(visual indicator)] is generated when an explicit scaling-sensitive marking is present in the video data and the video data is scaled,” but “the warning is not generated when the explicit scaling-sensitive marking is not present and the video data is scaled.” (Reply Br. 6.) The claimed selective issuance or non-issuance of a visual indicator when a scaling-sensitive marking is present or absent, respectively, “provides a novel and useful advantage . . . particularly in the field of medical diagnostics” where the viewer (e.g., a medical practitioner) should be made aware of artifacts created when scaling the original medical video data. (Reply Br. 2–3; see also Spec. 1:24–26, 4:25–31, 13:4–5, 13:10–11, 13:28–33.) In contrast, the Examiner’s cited “prior art may be configured to either always display a warning when video data is scaled, or never display a warning when video data is scaled,” but the “prior art does not teach or suggest selectively issuing a scaling warning, or not issuing a scaling Appeal 2018-005671 Application 15/022,593 7 warning, based on an explicit marking of the video data.” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added).) As Appellant explains, the display devices in the Examiner’s cited art issue warnings or visual indicators “whenever the video data is rescaled or resized,” but “do not exclusively display these visual indicators only for certain video data that contains a particular marker” as in Appellant’s claim 1. (Reply Br. 5–6; App. Br. 10.) For example, the “custom” bit (e.g., bit4) in Figure 10 of Kim ’253 controls the signal processing applied to an image, but Kim ’253 “is silent with regard to this bit being used to determine whether or not to issue a warning when the image is scaled.” (Reply Br. 6; see Kim ’253 7:12–27, Fig. 10.) As another example, Haj-khalil displays zoomed media content without selectively providing a visual indicator only for scaled media explicitly marked scaling- sensitive as claimed. (See Haj-khalil Figs. 7A–7C.) As the Examiner has not shown that the cited art teaches or suggests the claimed generating a visual indicator for visually indicating that the scaling-sensitive video data has been spatially scaled from its native spatial resolution only for that video data that is explicitly marked as being scaling- sensitive and has been spatially scaled, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2–8 and 10–12 dependent therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 13 and 15, argued for the same reasons as claim 1, and claims 16–20 dependent therefrom. (App. Br. 8, 11; Reply Br. 6.) DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. Appeal 2018-005671 Application 15/022,593 8 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 10– 13, 15– 20 103 Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art, Haj-khalil, Altmanshofer, An, Cherna, Cohen-Solal, DeHaan, Gotanda, Hernandez, Imai, Itani, Kim ‘253, Kim ’821, Lownes, Masukura, Rigolet, Sie, Sugiyama, Suh ’216, Suh ’272, Unemura, and Yoo 1–8, 10– 13, 15–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation